Payton v. New York - A Common Law Rule

Justice White, Chief Justice Burger, and Justice Rehnquist dissented from the Court's decision. Justice White disagreed with the Court's conclusion that there was no common law rule relating to warrantless arrests in the home. On the contrary, Justice White argued that the English common law at the time of the Fourth Amendment allowed such arrests provided that four circumstances were met: (1) the crime committed was a felony; (2) the officers knocked and announced their presence; (3) the entry was made during the daytime; and (4) there was probable cause to believe that the person who committed the felony was in the home at the time of the entry. Justice White thus concluded that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment did not intend to prohibit such arrests. He also reasoned that these four restrictions were adequate to protect the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. Finally, noting both that such warrantless arrests were allowed under the common law and that a number of states had long allowed such arrests, Justice White concluded: "Our cases establish that the ultimate test under the Fourth Amendment is one of `reasonableness' . . . I cannot join the Court in declaring unreasonable a practice which has been thought entirely reasonable for so long." Thus, Justice White would have found the warrantless entries into the homes of both Payton and Riddick to be constitutional because they met the four requirements of the common law rule.